Wow. 3 capital letters to inflect a point and an acronym in a wasteland of grammar and punctuation. My head hurts.

I agree. We've been planning for the future for the last 30 years, maybe we ought to plan for next week for a change.
Can't imagine how a controlled, patient game with low errors and completed sets would be of any use against the Aussies. We should just impatiently throw the ball all over, make loads of mistakes (to lull the opposition into a false sense of security) and aim for a low completion rate so we can spend more time tackling them. We've been trying that since I was 10, so it's bound to work someday?

Here's a thought though, put the squeeze on Australia, complete sets, kick deep and chase well, tackle first up and control the ball when you have it. Then take chances when the percentages look right. Have leaders all over the pitch, at prop, 9 and 6 who can control the ball and move the Aussies around and have exciting players who can take chances and create things out of nothing. Then have back row forwards who all give absolutely everything every game to do the donkey work.
McBannana has managed to put together just such a group of players. It also seems that club rivalries have been put to bed in the squad (who actually look like a team - not a bunch of players who usually hate each other) and they are all playing for each other.
We would have been much closer to Australia - may even have turned them over - if we hadn't lost Ellis, Graham and had Peacock playing on one leg for most of the game. We turned NZ over comfortably, they were never winning that game.

Only change I would make is to drop Widdop if Ellis is fit. Seems harsh on him but frankly we need four forwards on the bench against Australia. I wouldn't start messing with Yeaman and Briscoe, they were targetted a lot by NZ and held up well.

I Agree Completely with the Chase comment.

I'd leave Sinfield at 6 and move McGuire to 7.

Let Sinfield organise/create and get Widdop to Interchange with McGuire from the Bench.

Chase is just making up the Numbers when there's no need to do so.

The only problem with playing McGuire is that the VT would just simply catch fire with the moaning overload that would result. It would need shutting down, much in the same way the Wigan board had to be pulled down and sold to Tesco's when they lost to Stains in the GF eliminator.

I can see what you mean regards Widopp. I'm not sure McNamara knows how to use him off the bench and it seems a waste of a sub if he's only going to bring him on with 10 minutes to go. I'd still like to see him come on for Roby earlier in the game and move Sinfield to 9.

We'd need to Implementation a Firewall between the VT and the Moaning Barstewards with a Deny Any Moaning Rule.

This may or may not work.

Sorry if I come across as a Techie IT Geek.......but I am lol

I don't think the halves should change too much. I certainly don't think McGuire is the answer. I think Widdop has been under used, but thats part of the piece for a utility man. I think I'd prefer to see him start in the halves, but the coach has gone for chase

Building a team is about finding a balance - there's little point having two half-backs who are inconsistent, unpredictable but potentially brilliant although neither has a kicking game. With the likes of Chase and Tomkins in the team, what's needed is a steady head who can push the team around the park and into position for the flair players to work their magic.

With ball in hand, I thought Saturday was possibly Sinfield's weakest game of the tournament - the quick catch and read for Graham's try apart. His timing was a little off, particularly at the line.

With the boot however, as good an open field kicking display as you'll see. Everything from his own half found the floor and made the Kiwi back three go fetch it. The high stuff was usually in a position for the chasers to compete.

I've just passed out through lack of oxygen half way through the above can anyone tell me what he wrote?
PS shouldn't the thread title read "Kevin Sinfield Deprecation Society"?

sorry i didnt think of grammar i will edit it for grammar below

I think most people have been judging Kevin Sinfield on previous performances for England, however i think he has done exceedingly well in this tournament.I believe he has benifited due to the fact that he can take a step back and be able to be the organizing halfback, rather than having to do both the organization and the creativity.
With him having chase as a partner i think it gives him time to organize, get his troops where he needs them and this is the reason i think he is doing well this tournament. with him having such a creative and unpredictable partner in Rangi Chase, sinfield is able to sit back and do his usual game and the game that he is good at. compared to previous tournaments when he has partnered danny maguire yes he does this week in week out but with lack of creativity in the england team in general in seasons past, sinfield HAD to take the role of creative half back which is not his game, so to be fair i think he is enjoying playing the style he knows. On a further note well done on the MOM last night it was thoroughly deserved.

is that any better

Not really, you need to work on the correct use of capitals & sentence structure.
Try reading it out loud & you may see what I mean.
Unless you're a reincarnation of the American novelist William Faulkner.

didnt know these forums was an english written test jeez

If you want to apply the "building for the future" argument....shouldn't the Australians be dropping Darren Lockyer on Saturday...

Perhaps. It could easily be called "Kevin Sinfield Deprecation Society" but it isn't.

It's "depreciation" as in the antithesis of 'appreciation', both of which terms can relate either to change in value over a period of time or, as in this case, to increasing (bigging up) or lowering (doing down) esteem respectively.

It all seems very compliciated but I hope you apprecate the subtle differentation.